Obama Urges Paterson to Reconsider N.Y. Gov. Race

Gov Paterson's approval rating has hovered around 20% for a while now. I'm not surprised. I have a strong feeling the people of New York would have let the Gov know at the polls. Then again we had Hillary....

Using the current criteria for news stories I have concluded that the Gov is a victim of racism.

Perhaps he could play the bias against people with disabilities card touting being legally blind?

The Governor is being asked to step aside because he cannot govern. New York is in financial crisis and the Governor appears to do little or nothing about it. Spending is out of control and as soon as they figure out how to tax taxes New Yorkers will have the highest tax burden in the nation.

 

I do not think that his poll numbers or his ability to govern has anything to do with the issue. That is up to the citizens of New York. The point is the federal government (or Obama) has no right to interfear in internal state affairs. The Constitution grants certain powers to the federal government and certain powers to the states. Manipulating state level elections is not one of those powers given to the federal government.

 

I don't see the pressure of federal government trying to influence Gov Paterson's position. I see the power of position influencing another. The President is arguably the most powerful and influential Democrat in the nation. Gov. Paterson holds the distinction of having the lowest approval ratings of any governor in the history of the state. From the Party's perspective, they have a member whose sub-par performance reflects poorly on the Party as a whole ~state or national. Gov Paterson has lost the confidence of the State and now his own party. I see NY Dems throwing their support behind Andrew Coumo regardless of what decisions Paterson makes.

I don't see where you would conclude that federal powers are being wielded against the state to influence an election. One very powerful Democrat has said to another, "You're not our man. You need to step aside." The fact that one of the powerful Democrats is sitting in the White House is irrelevant.

Ultimately it is up to the voters of NY to determine who sits in Albany - or more accurately the voters of New York City...

 

That's interfere.

W.S.

 

You are better at spelling than theology.

 

Obama is looking out for himself, he is afraid New York will swing for the Republicans next election.

 

We have two Republican Senators and five of the six Congressmen are Republican. What Democrats that are in power at the state level tend to be conservative compared to the party. Obama's vote in the last election was in the 30's.

He has no credibility in this state. You are trying to seperate his role as Democratic leader and President, which is next to impossible to do. I cannot imagine anyone wanting this President relaying such a message to the Democratic Party in Kentucky, and most likely, would be ignored. If we do not like a governor, we will elect a new one, which we do quite regularly. Maybe Obama has that influence in New York, (or NYC, whatever), but he has none here.

 

That's not what you said in a PM.

 

And we have Chuck Schumer and a spot recently vacated by Hillary Clinton.... enough said...

New York has a population of 19.4 million people. 8.3 million live in the heavily Democratic NYC, another 1.2 million in the Buffalo area and another million in the greater Rochester area - again highly Democratic areas. President Obama is very influential in the state.

That said I don't think it is too hard to separate his role as the voice of the Democratic party and the presidency in this respect. For argument's sake let's say the mayor of our village is a member and deacon of the church I pastor. The mayor comes to me and say to the effect, "Pastor, this isn't working. You need to go." and then cites a 19% approval rate among the parishioners. Do I recieve the mayor's advice as coming from a deacon of the church or the mayor of the village? Rightly, the village has no say over the governance of church affairs and would be abusing their vested powers in doing so. I would have to assume the mayor was speaking on behalf of the church as a deacon.

Governor Paterson's performance is a blight on the party he represents. I would expect the strongest voices in the party to voice their opinions and to press their influence into the situation. Who has the strongest voice in the party but the man seated in the White House? Without the support of the Democrats, Paterson has little to no chance of waging a successful campaign regardless of his current approval.

What I would view as an imposition of federal powers would be for the president to say would be consequences to the state, ie: cutting of federal funding, or forcibly removing the Governor from office and replacing him without the voice of the voters being heard.

 

What? Obama got 62% of the vote in New York for the presidential election. McCain received 37%.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/votes.html

 

If you reread my post, you will see I was comparing my state (Kentucky) to the situation in New York. You are right, the votes were almost exactly opposite.

 

This just goes to show you how the liberal left will throw their own under the bus at the first sign of trouble in order to keep their claws around a governor's seat. Twenty years ago no one would ever dream of something like this.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

 

This kind of behavior is not unique to the Dems nor is it new in the recent past. The big difference is 20 years ago it wasn't spread around the world in 60 seconds.